Launy Takeoff with no lights-Not QF...JQ!

[Capt Kremin]

This was kept very quiet.

Incident: Jetstar A320 at Launceston on Mar 12th 2008, night takeoff without runway lights (http://avherald.com/h?article=40382b4a/0000)

Looks like it happened due to task saturation and in no way was it intentional.

One has to ask why the QF 737 crew was charged with a criminal offence when this JQ incident were treated as it should have been; an operational safety incident with no suggestion of criminality?

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

Maybe you didn't see it when it made the news last year. It wasn't kept particularly quiet.

I remember clearly reading, on this forum, the bleatings of those who cried double standards that the mainliners were being charged (a travesty, and contrary to the pursuit of aviation safety), while JQ's pilots were not.

Neither crew should! Instead there should be meaningful investigation conducted into mitigating the posibility of a repeat; I mean, really, why would two highly trained crews purposely take-off in the full knowledge that the runway lights weren't on?

Let us all hope that sanity and reason prevail with the B737 incident and the pilots concerned don't ever hear anything further about it.

[Capt Kremin]

Maybe if you could post the link. My post wasn't a JQ bashing exercise, just also pointing out the inequities.

[blueloo]

How bout spending some taxpayers money on something worthwhile instead of on dole bludgers and petty pointless court cases.

Anywhere we have RPT ops in largish commercial jets we should have a manned tower and radar. Not this BS do it yourself rubbish designed when man first started flying.

It all changes when we have a bingle or a near bingle. The Australian govt and companies such as QF are very reactionary - never very proactive.If they can get away without spending the money they will. (Maybe they call it affordable safety :ugh: :eek: :\ :} )

ie Portable Radars introduced (Although they are not much use though if nobody is watching them) - or Canberra for QF where you can't fly in unless the tower is manned.

[Baileys]

dole bludgers!!! I think Kevin 07 might be throwing a bit more money at middle class welfarers than the "dole bludgers". Talk about stereotyping - it's 2009 in the middle of the 'great recession' - typical Aussie redneck attitude through I guess.

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Simple have the tower open for Jet RPT operations.

[le Pingouin]

Simple have the tower open for Jet RPT operations.Controllers have duty hour limitations and can't extend indefinitely. Or are you proposing routine extended manning on the off chance a jet will run a couple of hours late every now & then? That'd be popular with the airline bean counters.

There's always the option of not flying if no tower service is available.....

[divingduck]

How about we put in place a system that if an RPT jet flies into an aerodrome, in a non controlled environment we have someone there on the ground that can turn on/off the lights, do a weather observation and a runway inspection prior to the jet arriving.
For safety sake, lets give each aerodrome a "bubble' of say 5000' and 15-20nm, where everyone flying into that area have to announce to the guy on the ground so he can determine, traffic conflictions and pass the pertinent info to the pilots.
He can even make the odd phone call for the pilots if needed, have a copy of all relevant NOTAMS and en-route weather to assist.
He/she may also have access to the internet/AFTN and be able to input changes to the flight plans etc.
How does that sound?



It used to happen once upon a time before Dick and his cronies got into power, and I may have blinkers on, but I don't see the Aussie system has really improved a lot since those days.
If someone mentions that the cost was prohibitive, hmmm, have the costs and charges gone down since then? Or are you paying more and more and getting less and less for that money spent?
In those days the controllers controlled, and the Flight Service guys did all that other stuff. No one was fatigued, or overloaded, management appreciated the staff and staff didn't outright loathe management.

Ahhhh, the simpler times of the good old days.

[mostlytossas]

Yeah but,many of us loathed Flight Service when they would refuse to accept a flight plan:}

[blueloo]

typical Aussie redneck attitude through I guess.

Apologies for thread drift - blame Bailey - he *made* me do it with his off topic post, so I couldn't help myself.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/brj2UkUPjCI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/brj2UkUPjCI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Dog One]

Perhaps some of the 17 billion dollars saved by Mr Smith could be used to employ another controller at Launceston so that the tower was manned to midnight and extended if necessary to cover RPT flights

[tasdevil.f27]

on another side note launy tower has finally gone back to full coverage this week. Handy with all the fog about to.

How about we put in place a system that if an RPT jet flies into an aerodrome, in a non controlled environment we have someone there on the ground that can turn on/off the lights, do a weather observation and a runway inspection prior to the jet arriving.
For safety sake, lets give each aerodrome a "bubble' of say 5000' and 15-20nm, where everyone flying into that area have to announce to the guy on the ground so he can determine, traffic conflictions and pass the pertinent info to the pilots.
He can even make the odd phone call for the pilots if needed, have a copy of all relevant NOTAMS and en-route weather to assist.
He/she may also have access to the internet/AFTN and be able to input changes to the flight plans etc.
How does that sound?show me the $$$ and where to sign.

Jetstar XXX, Launy ground, vis reducing 700m in fog, 6 lights visible 32L threshold & do you want coffee & biscuits on arrival?

[assasin8]

Come on folks... Parliament is busy debating the very important issue of utes!!!:rolleyes:

Would not want them wasting their time taking care of trivial issues such as aviation safety!

Hell, they have not even got time for the GFC! Kev has already given away all the money in the Government piggy bank!!!:ugh:

Cue the circus music...:mad:

[Trojan1981]

Having the airlines' ground service people turn on runway lights is not a bad idea (don't know about met obs). I know of at least one regional flight that very recently departed a regional airport after sundown (still some ambient light) without the PAL lights activated.
Mountains to the west made it very dark very quickly so it may not have technically been after last light but dark enough to need headlights if you were driving.

The ground staff are there and getting paid anyway, so why not?
At least have them make sure that the lights have been activated before departure as a back up to the flight crew.

[zube]

The street lights go on automatically at sundown and stay on.

Do the same for runway lights. Leave the suckers on when its dark! No people required and no half assed radio keying system to fail.

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

Capt K,

Sorry if I sounded like I thought you were JQ bashing - I didn't think you were, nor did I want my reply to sound so.

Here's an ABC link dated March 2008. There are a few more if you google it.

Spotlight again on Launceston Airport over safety concerns - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/17/2192036.htm)

:ok:

[13/31]

Leaving runway lights on for extended periods at night tends to attract lots of insects around the light fittings, which then attracts birds such as curlews, and they tend to become birdstrike victims, often causing very costly damage damage to airframe/engines because of their size and stupidity.

[Normasars]

Just a quick question.

Scenario. Two(2) a/c arrive at LT(or any other Class D for that matter).

One a/c happens to be a 76 seat EMB170, and the other a 74 seat Q400.

What is with this JET RPT wank. Are you saying that the lives and safety of the pax on the Q400 are not as valuable as those on the 170, or the 12 people in the Metro or 8 in the Chieftan?

RPT is RPT. Whether it's a PA31/C404 doing RPT or an A380.

If a Tower is provided it should be manned for ALL arrivals and departures. Simple as that. That was why it was built and that is why it is called Controlled Airspace.:ugh:

[captaintunedog777]

Jet wank???

Maybe some day son but with that attitude I doubt it. Airlines more than pay for the service clown. Do you have any knowledge of the industry at all? Run along now.

[tasdevil.f27]

If a Tower is provided it should be manned for ALL arrivals and departures. Simple as that.

Maybe in a perfect world, however sometimes things don't work like that. A controller may go sick, a flight may be running hours late & the controller runs out of hours etc.

Do you expect a controller to sit around the tower until 2am for one late flight????

[AIREHEAD]

It's simple realy. CASA should mandate that all RPT flights at night have the runway lights turned on manually. Could be done by safety officer, firey's or airline agent, depending on the location.

[Checklist Charlie]

Problems at Maroochydore as well!

No runway lights at Coast airport | General | Coast news | thedaily.com.au (http://www.thedaily.com.au/news/2009/jun/29/broken-lights-sunshine-coast-airport/)

No runway lights at Coast airport

11:54a.m. 29th June 2009

http://media.thedaily.com.au/img/photos/2009/06/29/plane_lead_t350.jpg A plane on the runway at Sunshine Coast Airport. Photo:Cade Mooney/165770

Sunshine Coast Airport staff are trying to fix broken runway lights in a bid to avoid diverting night time flights to Brisbane this evening.
The broken lights were discovered by a JetStar pilot as he approached the runway on a flight from Melbourne last night.
When the pilot tried to activate the runway lights via remote control from the cockpit, he found they were not working and the flight was diverted to Brisbane.
Sunshine Coast Airport general manager Peter Pallot said staff were working on fixing the problem.
While Mr Pallot was hopeful the lights would be repaired in time, the cause of the problem was not known.
Mr Pallot said flights landing at night time would need to be diverted if the lights could not be fixed.
Two flights, both JetStar, are scheduled to land at the airport tonight.

[ed1016nw]

Whats wrong with pilot controlled airport lighting?

[Normasars]

Captain Tune Dog, bit insecure are we MATEY. For anyone to call themselves that speaks volumes about you ,clown.
I am well aware that airlines pay for the service. Its also incorporated in ticket costs d1ckhead. Although you probably work for one of these new age co's that have $29 fares where everybody goes broke.:ugh:

If an airline can afford Reserve Crew then surely ASA can also have staffing levels that can afford Rostered reserve coverage. All part of the game. After all it is a Government entity

How would you know what I do? Oh and BTW don't worry about my experience levels sunshine. Been round the block a few times, probably alot more times than you SON.

Stick to your flight sim 2009.

[Capn Bloggs]

ed1016nw,
Whats wrong with pilot controlled airport lighting?
It doesn't always work. See this quote from the post above yours:
When the pilot tried to activate the runway lights via remote control from the cockpit, he found they were not working and the flight was diverted to Brisbane.


AIRHEAD,
CASA should mandate that all RPT flights at night have the runway lights turned on manually.
I Agree!

[tasdevil.f27]

Sorry for posting in this thread, but couldn't find the QF one. The QF runway light saga is back in court next week. With airport staff being required to give evidence.

[YPJT]

CASA should mandate that all RPT flights at night have the runway lights turned on manuallyName me an airport where this doesn't occur in the event of PAALC failure? Most RPT pilots going into regional airports seem to be happy enough with it. Seems like the Sunshine Coast problem would still be there regardless of activation method. It's obvious that it is not the PAALC that has failed but the lighting system itself.

[Capn Bloggs]

Name me an airport where this doesn't occur in the event of PAALC failure?
That's not the point. While it is a regulatory requirement to have someone in attendance to turn the lights on if the PAL doesn't work, there are plenty of workload-related scenarios eg Launy where a crew might operate without lights, or have them go off on them at a critical time.

Most RPT pilots going into regional airports seem to be happy enough with it.
I'm not. It is ridiculous that an RPT operation must rely on the crew to switch on the lights. Apart from a few electrons, what is saved verses the safety implications?

[YPJT]

or have them go off on them at a critical time.Well most systems are on a 60 min cycle and that cycle is reset each time there is a new activation. you might like to bring your concerns up at a RAPAC as that is the forum where you will achieve changes to the esablished procedures. Nothing much ever gets changed bleating on PPRUNE. However the fact remains that based on the information provided, the light failure at Sunshine Coast had nothting to do with PAALC.

I'm not. OK, so you're not most.:p

[Capn Bloggs]

Nothing much ever gets changed bleating on PPRuNe.
I was merely replying to your post. I did not "bleat" on Prune hoping that something will change.

[Wally Mk2]

There's one single reason as to why we see such events as the titled subject read here........USER PAYS!.............right or wrong it simply costs money to have a certain level of safety (by way of staff to turn on rwy lts for Eg.) & there in lies the real issue.
Doesn't matter how much staff is available, doesn't matter how much techno stuff is available, doesn't matter how much training is thrown at operators 'cause whilst humans are at the wheel we shall be entertained here for many years to come by way of mistakes:-)

"Normasars" I happen to agree with yr post:-)


Wmk2

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

And I wonder what could possibly be 'wrong' for the 'bagsnatchers' / ground staff to have a key or whatever for the appropriate light switch box?

Wouldn't cost any more as they are 'there' anyway.....

Manually ON / manually OFF......??

Hey "Ducky".....Yep! I thought we did it rather well too.............:D:D

Cheers:ok::ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Tossas,

RE: "Yeah but,many of us loathed Flight Service when they would refuse to accept a flight plan"

I seem to recall you have 'stated' this somewhere before........
and my response is the same as then......

FSO's did not have the 'Authority' to REFUSE to accept a Flight Plan - :=

UNLESS it was obviously / grossly incorrect in procedures, or some other deficiency -
e.g. inadequate fuel, reserves, holding due weather, etc etc

In which case, the 'problem' would have been brought to your immediate attention as an 'oversight' perhaps (?)... :uhoh:

And if you still 'differed' from the procedures/requirements of the time, and YOU refused to rectify the said Plan, I would then hand you the phone and let YOU discuss it with the Senior Ops CONTROLLER (SOC), who most certainly DID have the authority to take whatever action he saw fit. :eek:

.....and if you had then 'walked out' leaving said Plan, it would be discussed with the SOC, and submitted - copy to the SOC - with 'appropriate' remarks so as 'ongoing units' would be aware.... :}

And, no doubt, you would have received a message via the radio prefixed by 'From the SOC'.... :}

:ugh:

Cheers......

p.s. Sorry about the 'drift' folks, but really......:ugh::mad:.

[zube]

Ex FSO.
You FSO guys did a great job mate, and I missed you all when cost cutting phased you out. But things changed a bit after that.

In Australia we had that unique system where ATC had to approve flight plans pre flight for ops in controlled airspace, RPT and IFR. Some leftover from the Jurassic Age when a knee jerk re action to a fuel related crash was brought in.

Nowdays airlines/pilots file their plans electronically. There no approval from some bloke behind a counter. No brownie points. No critique. No, 9/10 for neatness, try harder next time. i,e. airlines/pilots take responsibilty for having enough fuel.

[Obie]

Can someone explain to me how a couple of experienced pilots could taxi out to the runway and not notice that the taxiway lights were not on?

And then turn onto the runway and not notice that the runway lights were not on?...at 2150 local time? :confused:

[Weapons_Hot]

Griffo
I recall that a OPX MSG from SOC would sort the buggr out :ouch:

[Feather #3]

Yeah.

Asked ATC for a CBR w/x as well as SYD one morning on our way down from SIN. We got it, albeit in a slightly nonplussed tone.

Shortly afterwards, got a message from the SOC querying why we wanted the CBR w/x. My answer was "because the Captain asked me to get it for him." Nothing more was said.

Just don't get a massive thread drift on the failure of Operational Control; it's time for bed!

G'day ;)

[Lookleft]

Obie-the explanation is in the ATSB report.

[spirax]

If there is a known problem with the PAL, then the answer is easy... get the lights on and leave them on till the problem is fixed.

Obie:
Can someone explain to me how a couple of experienced pilots could taxi out to the runway and not notice that the taxiway lights were not on?

As has been said in the thread on the QF LST occurrence, this type of incident is most likely more common than many of us believe. It may only get reported when someone on the ground see's it... as the pilots during t/o will most likely not see either the lights not on or fail during the run. (it is after all, almost daylight in front of most jets with the lights on) I have seen it happen and in all cases the crew had no knowledge that the lights were off.

Yes... good old Flight Service...

As for some SOCs, the power went to their head at times... hated it when you said "No" to them!!!

[Mr.Buzzy]

Agree with Norma.
I'm even willing to go one further and say that ref. the "RPT is RPT" remark.... I'd say a "flight is a flight" regardless of category. RPT, CHTR, PVT etc.
In an age where you can buy six solar powered garden lights from Bunnings for 20 bucks and where every street corner is surveyed by CCTV and speed cameras. Surely someone, somewhere, cares enough to develop a system to leave our busier aerodromes lit!!!!!!!!

Might be time to get out the soldering iron and king browns Norma!

Zube is spot on. Get rid of this mike clicky bullsh%t.... Leave 'em on!

bbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Jabawocky]

Shooting from the hip here, but I have to agree with Mr Buzzy :eek:.....thats scary :E

The idea of street lights was to help with based load many many moons ago.....of course we do not have the same base load shortages today, but if we are prepared to burn all the city lights all night, most in offices where its not needed apart from security, why can we not run all aerodrome lights all night and make it mandatory by law.

I wonder if GA operations at night might prefer it, especially in the case of an unexpected diverssion!:uhoh: One less thing to worry about.

J:ok:

[Mr.Buzzy]

Scary?... I resemble that!:ok:

bbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Obie]

Well, at the risk of repeating myself, and notwithstanding the CASA, or whatever, report and the protestations of some of you...

let me ask the question again...

how can two experienced pilots taxi out at a dark hole like Launey and not notice that the taxiway and runway lights are not on??

Change blindness?...inattentive blindness?...

What is this rubbish?

If the lights are on, they are on! If they are off,they are off!

If two pilots can't see that the lights aren't on...

God help us all!!

[Jabawocky]

Sorry Buzzzzzzzzzzzzzzy

I meant that in the ncest possible way! :ok: